Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2006 > December > 14 > Entry
Too late to save Roosevelt?
On Wednesday, I received an E-Mail copy of a letter to the editor from Beth Duke, the influential and well-known Dayton developer responsible for the rebirth of the Cannery and the Second Street Market downtown (and also, interestingly, Gail Littlejohn’s next door neighbor).
Duke’s letter is very direct — she says Roosevelt High School must not be torn down and she asks the city to refuse any school board request for a demolition permit.
When I shared this news with a few people involved in city and school district affairs, their reactions amounted to a collective “where has she been?” One observer of district affairs called Duke’s statements “irresponsible” because they could only create false hope among those sentimental about the school.
The Roosevelt decision was an agonizing one for the board and the total process took more than two years. Back in May, the board finally decided to reject a development proposal because board members said they felt the financing for the project was too iffy. Instead, the board signed onto a joint redevelopment plan with the city that calls for a city-run recreational center on the site paired with a new K-12 school for boys run by the district.
As I wrote then, there were strong arguments for saving Roosevelt. But, as I also wrote then, there was surprisingly little public outcry against the board’s demolition plan. And there’s been hardly a peep for the six months since the board made its decision.
As one person I consulted yesterday said, this is now very much a done deal. The district has removed all keepsakes from the building. A community “open house,” meant as a final goodbye, attracted hundreds of people over the weekend. At a city commission-school board joint meeting this week, both sides spoke openly of the progress of their redevelopment plans for the site.
Could the done deal be undone? Perhaps, if there was a real groundswell of support.
The question is whether that’s what the community wants. One “save Roosevelt” sympathizer told me yesterday that Dayton is the kind of place where sometimes it comes down to the last minute to motivate people.
So far, Dayton has not shown any urgency to keep the building rather than redevelop the site. The board and the city appear to have their minds made up.
What do you think of Duke’s letter?
Permalink | Comments (13) | Categories: Dayton Public Schools
Comments
By Scott Elliott
December 17, 2006 11:06 PM | Link to this
Joe, your arguement is not with me. Your beef is with the way the board you’re on makes decisions and conducts its business. I’m just saying the DDN and this blog have not been inaccurate in reporting and describing the boards actions with regard to Roosevelt.By Joe Lacey
December 16, 2006 11:56 PM | Link to this
Scott does the DPS Board conduct its business through discussions with you? Six members hadn’t told me how they were voting in May. Did Tracy Rusch tell you this on her way out of town? When did she plan on voting for it? Boards decide when they come together, discuss and vote. Until then it is inaccurate to say they did anything as a board. They acted as individuals. Also Scott, how can you tell me there should be no confusion on this issue when you yourself headlined a blog entry in May “Roosevelt’s chances get better”. I’ve talked to plenty of people who hadn’t known of Roosevelt’s fate. True, they probably should have been able to figure it out. But the real confusion is over the reason for Roosevelt’s demolition. People don’t understand why Roosevelt is being demolished. There’s been no public discussion of why board members felt the funding wouldn’t succeed or if that was the general view of the members who voted for it. Were there no other reasons? There was no real attempt to defend the decision when we voted on it. Three members voted without comment. Two others simply said that my dissent was inapropriate. We here often that board members “agonized” over the decision, but there agony is not a sufficient rationale for demolishing a historic building.By Scott Elliott
December 16, 2006 10:18 PM | Link to this
Come on, Joe. The boad held a press conference and announced its plan to demolish Roosevelt in May. Even if it didn’t formally vote until July, I don’t see how it can possibly be “inaccurate” to say the decision was made in May. Six board members at that time indicated publicly their intention to vote yes on the redevelopment plan. Also, I find it hard to believe people haven’t heard about the Roosevelt plan because there hasn’t been an editorial about it. The DDN wrote tons of stories about Roosevelt in April and May, including several on the front page.By Dave
December 16, 2006 6:06 PM | Link to this
Inaccuracies? Don’t worry, Oldprof. Like Will Rogers said, I only know what I read in the newspapers. Everything I stated was printed in the DDN, either by Scott or by Cathy Mong.By Joe Lacey
December 16, 2006 2:42 PM | Link to this
Oldprof I said little coverage in the opinion pages. I acknowledged the letters and speakups against demolition but the fact that the editorial board hasn’t taken a stand on the issue or published one of it’s guest opinion pieces could contribute to people not knowing about the decision. Even DDN reporter Scott Elliott wasn’t accurate about when the Board decided to demolish Roosevelt so I can’t see how people can criticize confusion in the community about what decision was made when. A building’s historical and architectural significance to a community probably should not be determined by a poll of people who live outside the metropolitan area.By Oldprof
December 16, 2006 9:49 AM | Link to this
BTW, Joe, is it true that the authors of the final Roosevelt proposal didn’t want details released? Otherwise, you could be putting the numbers out there for us all, right?By Oldprof
December 16, 2006 9:48 AM | Link to this
Are there inaccuracies here? I believe the two groups chose to work together to enhance their prospects without DPS asking them “at the last minute”. I don’t know what qualifies as DDN giving the issue “very little” coverage; a quick search of this blog reveals about a dozen entries about it in the past year, and DDN in general has published several letters about it on those very opinion pages. Maybe the reason it’s not getting more coverage is that the only ones who are deeply concerned about it are a very vocal minority? I’d hazard a guess that if you asked the typical Daytonian to name the most important historical sites in this city, Roosevelt would come up less than half the time—and if you asked someone from beyond this metro area, roughly never.By Joe Lacey
December 15, 2006 5:44 PM | Link to this
Another point regarding why I’m not at all surprised by the recent reaction to the demolition of Roosevelt is that the Dayton Daily News opinion pages have given the issue very little coverage. A fair amount of “Speak-Ups” and letters to the editor were printed (mostly if not all anti-demolition) but no editorials or larger opinion columns exploring the issue have been in the paper.By Joe Lacey
December 15, 2006 5:34 PM | Link to this
Dave, their funding proposal was not putting any additional financial risk on the school district because the proposal was to transfer ownership of the property to the collaborative group. In fact their proposal actually relieved the school district of maintenance costs upon the transfer. The district has been paying maintenance costs for Roosevelt for over three years now. The proposal was solid. It had leadership from people with experience with large projects. It had a financing plan that fit the project. It had an analysis of the market. If the project had naysayers, they were not coming before the board with their concerns.By Dave
December 15, 2006 9:16 AM | Link to this
Two seasoned developers had spend close to two years and a fair bit of money studying, designing and conducting feasability analyses. A community activist came up with a competing proposal. At the last minute, the School Board asked them to combine their proposals. They did this and then presented their final proposal, with funding, to the Board. These developers felt they had a solid proposal, and Beth Duke thinks they were right. Only the School Board got to see the funding proposal, so I think we should ask Joe Lacey if their funding was reasonable, or not and whether their proposal was putting any additional financial risk on the school district.By Joe Lacey
December 15, 2006 1:22 AM | Link to this
The board made no decision in May. President Littlejohn held a press conference in May to say that DPS would demolish Roosevelt but the issue did not come before the Board for a decision until July 5, 2006. The collective “where has she been?” mentality of city and school district people is unfair considering the process under which this decision was made. Roosevelt’s demolition was announced in May after public meetings that only discussed its renovation. The actual decision to demolish Roosevelt was just one of many decisions buried in the school construction master plan voted upon by the Board just after the 4th of July weekend. The meeting did not invite public comment. It was not covered by the Dayton Daily News. At that meeting I raised several points questioning the the decision to tear down Roosevelt. With little or no comment and without addressing my arguments my colleagues voted to demolish. One board member erroneously thought that we had already voted on it. When you are tearing down a historically and architectually significant building in your community, the burden of proof is on you to show that there is no other recourse. No evidence that the collaboration for renovation’s efforts were not attainable was ever brought before the board for discussion.By DPSParent
December 14, 2006 4:49 PM | Link to this
OH COME ON BETH DUKE!!! This would be another development like the cannery??? READ VACANT!!! Where is the $$$ for this project??? No one wanted to back the other plans presented to DPS.. Both sounded good but no $$$$ and if you really look into the city’s use of Roosevelt you would see that they quit using the smaller pool years ago due to poor structure. and towards the end the main pool was closed more than it was open. I walked through the building at the open house and thought WOW what a big building… How much does it cost to heat this monster? Yes it was a well built building in 1923! But let’s get real!! Take some pictures and lets get the eyesore down ASAP! Don’t waste my tax dollars on this thing anymore. Alumni need to remember it was the people not the building that made their high school memories…By Oldprof
December 14, 2006 4:32 PM | Link to this
I think it’s insulting to the alumni of Stivers, who asked the board what had to be done to save their antiquarian school, and then worked hard to raise real funds to pay for it. I’ve got more respect for collaborative problem-solving than for this sort of grandstanding.